Why is America still illegaly occupying Iraq?

Question

The U.S. invaded Iraq (Illegaly, against the UN )

They got Saddam in a court of his peers and they did him.

So why are they staying there?

Why can't they just stay home?

Answer 1

Oh this is going to be fun.

Okay the UN cannot tell a sovereign country what it can or cannot do. They can request and make alot of noise but that is about it. So how do you make a statement that the US illegally invaded Iraq. The US built a coalition of countries to help them out and stated ahead of time what it was going to do. No the US did not have a UN resolution backing them up but actually there is not a legal requirement for one.

Next, yes The US got Saddam in a Court of his peers, but they were not the judge or prosecutor, that was run by the Iraqi Government. What do you mean by "they did him" The execution was conducted again by the Iraqi Government with NO US assistance. Saddam was taken from his holding cell and handed over to the Iraqi's and then all US forces were pulled out of the area.

The US is staying there until the Iraqi forces can maintain and sustain themselves without our help and take over all aspects of protecting their country. The US has already said as well as the PM or Iraq that US forces will leave when asked to by the government of Iraq. I do not think you realize the trouble that would be caused if all US forces just pulled out today. The power vacuum that would create would leave all sorts of trouble for a fledgling government and military. You would have groups from several countries around there trying to exert their power inside the country like Russia did with their puppet states. This could lead to an extreme fundamentalist type government and in my humble opinion that would be bad.

Answer 2

The UN is not a governing body with sovereignty over the US or Iraq. The Iraqi government wants the US there thus it is not illegal.

I find it amazing that the terrorists, fundamental muzzies and liberals all agree on the same things.

Answer 3

Eh....there are lots of things I don't like about our troops being in Iraq; the Iraqi people don't even want them there. Only the Iraqi gov't does....we are "supposed" to be helping them establish a stable gov't and rebuild the economy, but I think we should just get the hell out and leave them be....and even though the invasion was based on false claims, it was not wrongful...The UN DID already have sanctions against Iraq...This whole thing just grinds my nerves anymore.

Answer 4

Is everyone that keeps saying that we were invited, forgetting that we came, conquered, overthrew, appointed a gov't & told them to say they want us to stay?

We were not invited by the then gov't of Saddam, not that I am saying I am a fan of his, but at least come forth with that! You are speaking of the current gov't that was placed in power after the US overthrew the gov't. That is told that we must stay. So, it is not true that we were invited.

And in a show of fairness (& balance) I will agree that the UN is not able to declare US actions illegal or legal. they just kind of oversee & voice opinions. Except when thier kids are into illegal activities.

Answer 5

nicely, on account that they already are, i imagine they shouldnt be. the U. S. isn't meant to "police" the international by way of itself. it really is the pastime of the UN. opposite to what rumsfeld theory, the U. S. become no longer welcomed into iraq as liberators yet in consumer-friendly words as invaders. and now seem at iraq, civilians are lack of life, troops (iraqi and american) are being killed, and the country as erupted right into a civil warfare. the U. S. protection rigidity did no longer have a sparkling reduce plan of reconstruction and it truly is been a finished failure. i supported the invasion of afghanistan to locate al qaeda and osama. in spite of the undeniable fact that, i do no longer consider the invasion of iraq. no WMDs were ever got here upon, saddam did no longer have connections to al qaeda, and saddam by no ability tried to receive uranium from niger. it turned right into a set of nonsense to achieve oftentimes going on help to invade iraq and it has costed human beings their lives. final analysis, the invasion turned right into a mistake and pretty unnecessary. the U. S. authorities has no longer in consumer-friendly words lied to its own human beings, yet some thing of the international. and that is one clarification why the total international hates the U. S. as we communicate.

Answer 6

Illegally, and against the UN, are not the same thing; we have our own laws, and we have sent troops in there, and kept them there, according to those laws. I agree that we shouldn't be in Iraq, (not because the UN doesn't like it, but because we need to be finding Bin Laden) but this "illegal" crap has got to go.

Answer 7

Put you faith in the UN?

Cambodia, 2 million dead, by Pol Pot, no UN action

Rwanda, .5- 1 million dead, no UN action.

Iraq, 100,000 Kurds and Iranains killed by poison gas, no UN action.

You go ahead and put your faith in the UN and its decision making abilities, their permission wasn't needed to go into Iraq.
Don't forget all the Resolutions the UN passed condeming Iraq's nuclear and missle programs - with no action.

Answer 8

Regardless of whether the invasion was legal or not, our presence is not, as we are now there at the recognized governments request.

Nice try though.

Answer 9

Actually, the UN had sanctions against Iraq, so you would be wrong.

Answer 10

Marv, why do you consider the U.N. the authority on what is legal and illegal? And since when does our constitution say we need to serve the U.N.? We fought the British for independence. Do you want us to pledge our alligence to the U.N. and become it's slaves?